Agenda item

5.1      The Head of Education Strategy and Development presented a report on High Needs which provided the draft High Needs Budget for the financial year 2024/25; information on the impact of a 3% inflationary uplift to the SEND banding; and the proposal for the delivery of a SEND targeted support funding model for mainstream schools.

5.2      He informed members that in the draft High Needs budget 2024/25 there was a gap of £23.583M between the expected levels of expenditure and the High Needs funding allocation.

5.3      The key assumptions were as follows:

Ø   The mainstream and Early Years top-up budgets were modelled, assuming a          similar growth in the number of funded Education Health and Care Plans (EHCP) that was experienced in 2023/24.  In addition, it included an assumption, subject to approval by the Cabinet, of a 3% increase in the banding levels.  This resulted in an expected increase in spend of around £2M across the four budget lines.

Ø   Increase of 38 special school places and the full year impact of 50 places at Sladewood School.  It also included capacity to extend Early Years specialist provision for 2024/25.  This resulted in an expected increase in spend in special school place funding of £1.235M.

Ø   As a consequence of the additional places and the proposed increase in banding rates by 3%, the cost of EHCP top-ups for maintained schools was expected to rise by around £750k.

Ø   Net increase of 71 placements into independent special schools.  This was forecast to increase the independent schools’ budget, including post-16 placements, by £1.7M.

Ø   Pressures on Hospital Education services were also high.  Adjustments to the service offer were being made to strengthen support.  As a consequence, the forecast expenditure had been increased by £500k.

Ø   Continued rise in demand for Education Other Than At School, Personal Budgets, and Special School Bespoke packages.  This accounted for an expected increase in spend of £1.45M.

Ø   Local authority staffing budgets have had a 3% inflationary increase applied to ensure that pay awards can be made without a reduction in the service offer.

5.4         The Head of Education Strategy and Development explained that the draft High Needs budget 2024/25 was broadly in-line with the Dedicated Schools Grant management plan forecast for 2024/25.  Forecast expenditure was £119.5M and income £95.8M, which showed a forecast deficit of £23.7M.  The final High Needs budget for 2024/25 which was subject to approval by the local authority (including the proposed 3% inflationary uplift), would be presented at the June Forum meeting. 

5.5      Two Forum members representing secondary school headteachers, strongly emphasised that schools were at crisis point as there was simply not enough funding for schools to adequately support children with SEND.  One member reported that the budget for his school would be in a significant deficit position this year, and this was directly related to an overspend on support for pupils with SEND.  Both members stressed that at some stage there would come a point when schools would not be able to deliver on their commitments.  There was recognition that it would not be possible given the current funding constraints for the local authority to deliver an increase to the SEND banding rates above 3%; however, it was suggested that if any additional funding was received from government, that it be allocated to schools to support children with SEND.

5.6      One Forum member representing special school governors strongly emphasised that special schools were not receiving sufficient funding, and that the proposed 3% increase to special school banding was not high enough. 

5.7      In response to a question, the Head of Education Strategy and Development reported that the average cost of a placement at an independent special school was circa £20-25k higher, compared to the average cost of a placement in one of the county’s maintained special schools.  He acknowledged there was too much reliance on independent special schools as currently, despite all of the progress being made to increase sufficiency, there was still not enough special school places in the county.  It was agreed that a breakdown on the cost of placements at independent special schools would be brought to the June Forum meeting. 

ACTION: Head of Education Strategy and Development.

5.8      In response to a question from a member representing special school governors on the increasing need for more Post-16 and19 provision in the county, the Head of Education Strategy and Development reported that one of the core activities in the DfE’s Delivering Better Value in SEND Programme was to look at Post-16 commissioning.  There was recognition that the increase in the number of EHCPs in the system would, in next few years, start to impact Post-16 provision.  There was a need to ensure that there was appropriate and sufficient Post-16 provision, and the local authority was working with the Further Education and colleges in the county to look at developing the right Post-16 offer in the local area.  He commented that there was an opportunity for the member to become involved in this work, which would be a key priority over the next couple of months.   

5.9      One member pointed out that the more schools did not receive sufficient funding to support children with SEND within the mainstream, the more the permanent exclusion rate would increase, meaning increased pressure on specific elements of the High Needs budget, and more children going into independent special schools; thereby creating a false economy. 

5.10    The Head of Education Strategy and Development provided an overview of why the SEND Targeted Support Funding Model was being reviewed.  He explained that the threshold of the model had risen repeatedly. This was because the growth in the number of EHCPs had significantly increased the cost of the model.  There was no mechanism within the current model to control spend throughout the year, and the continued adjustments to the threshold to make the model work within a broad budget of £3-3.5M was not sustainable.

5.11    There was currently no oversight of the impact of the funding, which made it harder for the local authority to sustain the model, or commit more funding.  He pointed out that if the impact of the funding could be assessed, a case could be made for further investment in the model to reduce the use of high-cost specialist placements.

5.12    The current model exclusively used EHCP numbers to distribute funding.  Using the EHCP as the only identifier or proxy factor to recognise the complexity of needs for a school cohort was a significant limitation in the existing model.

5.13    He reported that the modelling work and the working group session had been helpful in exploring the benefits and potential challenges in making changes to the existing SEND Targeted Support Funding Model.  He reported that the key points of the feedback and learning were:

Ø    The proposed model provided much greater control of expenditure.

Ø    Assessing the impact of funding was important for future investment. Schools that had received the targeted support funding would be asked to report back on how the funding had been used.  The local authority would then be able to assess the impact, creating an impact report, from which a case could be made for further investment in the model to reduce the use of high-cost specialist placements.

Ø    Longer-term investment and allocations was positively received but reduced the responsiveness of the model.

Ø    Broadening proxy factors significantly changed distribution of funding and that SEND factors (EHCP, SEND Support and Low Prior Attainment), remained critical for distribution.

5.14    The Head of Education Strategy and Development reported that officers had taken account of the feedback and views, including how the funding should be distributed.  He explained that the new model would be implemented in two phases, as detailed below:

Phase 1:

Ø    Funding to be agreed as a fixed sum for 2024/25, to mirror expenditure on the 1 in 30 model in 2023/24.

Ø    Funding to be allocated to schools as a lump sum, to replicate the exact amount received in 2023/24.  Schools would be asked to confirm how the money would be spent and the impact the funding has had for children and young people with SEND in their school.

Phase 2:

Ø    Further refinement of the funding model and the proxy factors to address feedback from schools, specifically the inclusion of MyPlan+ data and EHCP banding data.

Ø    Further modelling to take place across the summer, with a Schools Forum working group session to review distribution options, ahead of a Schools Forum decision in the Autumn term for 2025/26 allocation of funding.

5.15    One member questioned whether consideration had been given to implementing a degree of monitoring and control over the proxy factors.  He suggested that some schools may increase the number of children moving from a MyPlan to a MyPlan+ so as to receive more of a share of the funding.  In response, the Head of Education Strategy and Development reported that the variation in practice around SEND support was an issue that needed to be looked at in greater detail, and the unintended consequences of using certain proxy factors would need to be considered.  He added that a MyPlan+ identified that a child had a level of need requiring multi-agency support, meaning there was a strong degree of control and rigour around using this as a proxy factor.  As there was a variation in practice in terms of the broader SEND support, the general view was that they would not be the strongest proxy factors to use in determining the distribution of funding.  He reported that officers were working on refining the proxy factors that would be used, including the specific weightings to be applied.

5.16    One member commented that he felt the direction of travel was wrong.  In his view the  funding for children with EHCPs should be ring-fenced and should follow the child and not be conflated with other budgets.  He indicated that the notion to invest funding into schools to reduce the need for EHCPs, was not realistic.  It would place intolerable pressure on schools that were trying to do their best and may lead to schools not being able to meet the legal requirements of the EHCPs in terms of the support that should be provided. 

5.17    The Head of Education Strategy and Development explained that the provision of targeted support funding had not been about reducing the number of the EHCPs in the system.  He explained that the model was set-up by the local authority in an attempt to address flaws in the Schools National Funding Formula, that prevented those schools with more complex cohorts receiving the additional funding that was intended.  He pointed out that parental preference meant that we would continue to see, schools that were perceived to have better SEND support, attracting higher proportions of children with SEND.